Helping our Neighbors by Reducing the Rate of Tax Increases
The City should spend efficiently and minimize tax increases.
Prop 1 is a 43% increase in the Parks Department budget, from about $25M/year to $35M/yr. This is too big of an increase.
The Sammamish Center is a Great Example
It is Possible
The City of Sammamish opened a very nice aquatics/rec center in 2016 costing $33M to build without raising any taxes. All their operation costs are from membership fees so people who do not use the center do not pay for it. This would be about $55M in today’s construction costs, half of the proposed Houghton center cost.
The Y regional management this year have said they are very interested in working with Kirkland.
The Prop 1 Houghton Center is expensive to build and to operate. Usage fees will only cover 74% of costs, the rest is subsidized by taxpayers.
We Told the City What We Wanted
The City Did Not Listen to Us
Per the 2021 Community Survey we, by a wide margin, support a bond measure not a tax increase to pay for an aquatic facility. Prop 1 is not a bond, it is a permanent property tax increase.
We also support increased user fees over increased property tax. The Prop 1 aquatics center is not fully funded by user fees.
Need a Better Location
Location Is Important
This is a long term decision, the location for an aquatics center should be chosen correctly. The Houghton site is in south Kirkland and far from Finn Hill or Juanita neighborhoods. Either the north end of Juanita Beach park or near the intersection of 100th Ave NE and NE 132nd St would be more accessible to all in Kirkland. Land in this area should be less expensive than in Houghton. The City will need to buy the site proposed in Prop 1 from the State DOT for $9,000,000. This amount should easily buy an appropriate site in central Kirkland.
Don't Include Low Priority Items
Prop 1 Includes Low Priority Items
Popular items were included in Prop 1 to try to achieve passage. The new park restrooms and the Juanita Green Loop trail are among top priorities per the 2021 Parks Survey.
But the proposed center is large and expensive because it also includes low priority items. Community Centers and Services are among lowest priority of the Park's programs.
The inclusion of pickleball courts in Prop 1 is curious. The dollar amount could easily be spent within current Park’s funding. But since pickleball enthusiasts are so dedicated, listing this to get “the pickleball vote” is a calculated addition.
After aquatics the next biggest ongoing expenses are teen programs (a very low priority in surveys) and Implementation Positions needed to “… plan for and operate the increased investments…” (This is a large increase in administrative staff.) - See June 27 Letter Page 6
Bonds are Better for Taxpayers
Bonds Are Better
If Bonds are used to pay for construction, their fixed payment becomes more affordable over time. If a tax increase is used, this tax rate goes up each year with the 1% rate increase and it does not end when the center is paid off.
The City has stated they need the permanent tax to cover other costs that will be higher in the future. If they do, this should be openly stated in a future ballot measure and not tagged on to the Aquatics Center ballot measure. Taxpayers of the future have the right to vote on their tax rates.
Helping our neighbors make the right Decision on Prop 1
Prop 1 Not Transparent Information
The City language says Prop 1 is to “expand aquatics, recreation, and parks facilities, operations, and programs.” They know many voters don't study ballot measures before deciding and this list from the City gives the impression it is covers many things.
In reality 80% of the funding is to build and operate the large aquatics and meeting center. It would be more transparent to offer a bond measure for just the aquatics/meeting center and an other ballot initiative so we could vote separately for the other items.
The City also says the Prop 1 center was the recommendation of the Parks Funding Exploratory Committee (the people). We on the Con Committee were also on PFEC, we were never shown a YMCA run option and we were not allowed to bring it up.
(See Prop 1 Cost and Spend Plan)
Facility Cost Comparison Shows Usage Fees
The $1,560 Annual Usage Fee Hard to Find
The City information on Prop 1 does not mention usage fees but it does say user fees will recoup 74% to 80% of costs. If the cost recovery percent is known, the usage fees that make up that cost recovery could easily be listed.
- The Fact Sheet on Prop 1 does not mention user fees.
- The June 27 letter from the Parks Director to the City Manager Table 5 refers to the Revenue but it does not mention the user fees that make up the revenue.
- Much of the detailed information that was presented to the PFEC committee is retained on the PFEC site, Aquatics center usage fees are not in the PFEC information.
However, the usage fees can be seen on the video of June 6 City Council meeting. At minute 43 is a presentation from Parks Director to City Council that shows this slide.
Increasing Inequity
Room for Moderate Income Families
Kirkland should leave room for those with moderate incomes. Prop 1 will tax all income levels and it increases the growing income inequity.
- It includes a full commercial kitchen and banquet rooms. Moderate income people are much less likely to go to catered events (unless they are working the event).
- It requires a $1,560 membership fee to use which is a lot of money for moderate income families. Most of them would not use the center.
- The Rec Center is intended to be a showcase costing twice what a sensible aquatics center would cost.
- The City says they do not use private/public partnerships because Kirkland provides "a higher level of service". This sounds like a fine dining restaurant or a luxury hotel.
There can be cost exemptions for those with low incomes, but these are very low thresholds. These discounts cannot extend to middle incomes.
Prop 1 increases the pressure pushing middle income people out of Kirkland.
A Better Solution
What We Do Support
1. A sensible aquatics center, like Sammamish built. This cost $33M in 2016 which would be about $55M today, per cost calculators. Half the $108M Prop 1 Center
2. Work with a partner like the YMCA. They contributed $5M toward the Sammamish build. This would lower the Kirkland share of the build cost.
3. Have all operation costs paid by user fees. Those who don't use the center don't pay for it. Working with a Partner allows that.
4. Fund with a Bond that ends when the center is paid off.
5. In a central location more accessible to Finn Hill and Juanita.